On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Have a look at a very typical usage (where I, alas, can't watch the video): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17457845 . That image is just a better initial place-holder than the first frame - which hasn't been fetched yet, when the page loads. > > Good example. The image there is not in fact a frame from the video at all, although similar in theme and clearly from the same event. > > I think we have clearly established that at least some of the time there may be an image displayed which is distinct from the video content, and I don't see anyone arguing to remove the possibility of this distinction. > > Since we also all appear to agree that the idea here is to provide in text all of the information available visually, then there is a clear use case to allow the means to describe both parts *when they are distinct*, Being distinct resources does not mean they convey distinct information. Even if the image in David's example is not from the video (I can't confirm this either ;-), it still conveys the same information as a short text alternative for the video would. That's all that matters. Silvia.Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:05:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:22 UTC